Munoz v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
238 Cal. App. 4th 291
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Munoz and Edwards alleged Chipotle law violations related to Shoes for Crews and wage statements in a proposed California class of nonexempt employees.
- Plaintiffs claimed deductions for Shoes for Crews shoes were unauthorized, reduced wages below minimum wage, and wage statements lacked the start date of pay periods.
- A TAC added Edwards as named plaintiff and asserted PAGA penalties for all but the 17200 claim; plaintiffs sought two subclasses and a Shoe Expenses Subclass.
- Chipotle moved to deny class certification; plaintiffs sought certification of multiple subclasses and derivative claims under labor codes and PAGA.
- The trial court denied class certification, finding lack of predominance and individual issues; it stayed individual claims pending appeal.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing death knell doctrine made the order appealable and that PAGA claims did not defeat appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does death knell apply given remaining PAGA claims? | Munoz argues PAGA keeps incentives to appeal the denial. | Chipotle contends death knell does not apply because PAGA claims keep the action viable. | Death knell doctrine applied; appeal dismissed due to PAGA retention. |
| Is the order denying class certification appealable under death knell? | Plaintiffs contend the denial is appealable because die-in-will triggers finality when class claims fail. | Chipotle argues the order is not appealable as a nonfinal, partial denial. | Order deemed unappealable under death knell; appeal dismissed. |
| Do PAGA claims defeat the death knell rule here? | PAGA claims provide penalties enabling continued incentive to pursue appeal. | PAGA presence negates the death knell rationale. | PAGA presence precludes application of death knell; dismissal affirmed. |
| Did the trial court properly analyze predominance and numerosity for subclasses? | Subclasses shared common issues; predominance proved under Brinker/Morgan framework. | Evidence showed individualized inquiries; common issues not predominant. | Trial court’s predominance finding upheld; class certification denied. |
| Was the appeal properly framed beyond the class-certification denial? | Plaintiffs sought review of related discovery and wage-authorization rulings. | Those issues were not properly appealed or within the record on appeal. | Court did not reach or resolve those ancillary issues; appeal limited to death knell dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Baycol Cases I & II, 51 Cal.4th 751 (Cal. 2011) (death knell review of class certification under final-judgment rationale)
- Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal.2d 695 (Cal. 1967) (death knell doctrine for appeal of denials of class certification)
- Baycol, 51 Cal.4th 751 (Cal. 2011) (reaffirmation of death knell principles)
- Haro v. City of Rosemead, 174 Cal.App.4th 1067 (Cal. App. 4th 2009) (FLSA context; class action considerations distinct from California rules)
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (policies for class-wide liability analysis in certification)
- Morgan v. Wet Seal, Inc., 210 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. App. 2012) (predominance requires common issues to predominate over individualized inquiries)
- Arias v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.4th 969 (Cal. 2009) (Arias on PAGA claims and class action interplay)
- Olson v. Cory, 35 Cal.3d 390 (Cal. 1983) (premises for treating appeal as writ under unusual circumstances)